数字创新团队中的创新张力: 内涵及其多层次效应

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2026.2186

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 作为组织中开展数字创新活动的基本单元, 数字创新团队面临相互依存的社会技术要素之间持续存在的矛盾关系, 构成复杂突出的创新张力。这些创新张力如何转化为创新的动力而非阻力成为亟待探明的问题。现有文献虽然探讨了数字创新情境下创新张力的共通性与特异性, 但对数字创新团队中创新张力的表征形式和作用机制仍缺少系统性认知。为此, 本研究首先明晰数字创新团队中创新张力的内涵与表征, 构建核心维度并开发测量工具; 其次, 揭示数字创新团队中创新张力的多重效应机制, 包括对个体创新想法产生的“过犹不及”效应以及对团队创新想法产生和创新想法实施的“双刃剑”效应, 同时探寻相应的个体自我调适和团队有效管理之道。预期成果不仅能拓展对创新张力的情境化认知, 推动数字创新团队中创新张力研究领域的发展与创新, 也为数字创新情境下的创新张力管理提供实践指导。

关键词: 数字创新团队, 创新张力, 悖论理论, 多层次效应

Abstract: As the basic units for conducting digital innovation activities within organizations, digital innovation teams face persistent contradictory relationships among interdependent socio-technical elements, giving rise to complex and salient innovation tensions. How these innovation tensions can be transformed into drivers of, rather than barriers to, innovation remains an urgent question. Although existing literature has examined both the commonalities and specificities of innovation tensions in digital contexts, systematic understanding of their manifestations and mechanisms in digital innovation teams is still lacking.
To address this gap, this study draws on paradox theory as an overarching lens to investigate the conceptualization and multilevel effects of innovation tensions in digital innovation teams. First, grounded in socio-technical systems theory, the study defines innovation tensions in digital innovation teams as “persistent contradictory relationships among interdependent socio-technical elements during digital innovation activities” and preliminarily identify three core dimensions: social-focused tensions, technology-focused tensions, and hybrid-focused tensions. On this basis, the study outlines a rigorous scale development procedure for developing a corresponding measurement instrument, providing a measurement foundation for empirical research on innovation tensions in digital innovation teams. Second, building on the stage-specific characteristics of the innovation process, the study constructs a multilevel mechanism model of innovation tensions at both the individual and team levels. At the individual level, drawing on activation theory, the study proposes a “too much of a good thing” effect of innovation tensions on individual innovative idea generation. Specifically, innovation tensions in digital innovation teams are proposed to exhibit an inverted U-shaped relationship with individual agile responsiveness; that is, a moderate level of innovation tension is most conducive to stimulating individual agile responsiveness, whereas both excessively low and excessively high levels of tension weaken agile responsiveness, thereby affecting individual innovative idea generation. Paradox mindset and core self-evaluation moderate this inverted U-shaped relationship between innovation tensions and individual agile responsiveness. Specifically, individuals with a strong paradox mindset can maintain agile responsiveness under higher levels of innovation tension, while individuals with high core self-evaluation show a smaller decline in agile responsiveness under high tension. Furthermore, both moderators also shape the indirect inverted U-shaped relationship through which innovation tensions influence individual innovative idea generation via individual agility. At the team level, adopting a team process perspective, the study proposes a “double-edged sword” effect of innovation tensions on the generation and implementation of team innovative ideas. On the one hand, innovation tensions facilitate team conventional routine replication, which in turn benefits the implementation of team innovative ideas but hinders the generation of team innovative ideas. On the other hand, innovation tensions also promote team flexible routine replication, which in turn benefits the generation of team innovative ideas but hinders the implementation of team innovative ideas. Digital platform ecosystem embeddedness and team shared vision can optimize the overall impact of innovation tensions on the team innovation process by amplifying their positive effects while mitigating their negative effects.
The expected contributions of this study are threefold. First, by focusing on digital innovation teams as basic innovation units, this study systematically elucidates the conceptualization of innovation tensions in digital contexts and lays the foundation for developing a corresponding measurement instrument. This not only advances the contextualized development of the innovation tension construct and its manifestations but also facilitates the transition of research on innovation tensions in digital innovation teams from theoretical discussion to empirical testing. Second, by exploring the multilevel and multifaceted effects of innovation tensions in digital innovation teams, this study reveals a “too much of a good thing” effect at the individual level and a “double-edged sword” effect at the team level, thereby deepening the overall understanding of the micro-mechanisms linking innovation tensions and innovation outcomes in digital contexts and providing a more integrative theoretical framework for understanding and guiding the effective management of innovation tensions in digital innovation teams. Third, this study extends research on the antecedent mechanisms of innovation outputs in digital innovation teams, offering a new theoretical perspective for explaining the generative processes and activation pathways of team innovation outputs in digital contexts, while also providing practical implications for promoting innovation outputs in digital innovation teams.

Key words: digital innovation teams, innovation tensions, paradox theory, multilevel effects

张毛龙, 林彦梅, 李晋, 王丽. (2026). 数字创新团队中的创新张力: 内涵及其多层次效应. 心理科学进展 , 34(12), 2186-2201.

ZHANG Maolong, LIN Yanmei, LI Jin, Wang Li. (2026). Innovation tensions in digital innovation teams: Conceptualization and multilevel effects. Advances in Psychological Science, 34(12), 2186-2201.

参考文献

[1] 曹勇, 东志纯, 王子欣, 陈炳轩. (2025). 双元跨界搜索与新产品开发绩效: 平衡与互补视角的实证.南开管理评论, 28(2), 30-41.
[2] 陈冬梅, 王俐珍, 陈安霓. (2020). 数字化与战略管理理论——回顾、挑战与展望. 管理世界, 36(5), 220-236+220.
[3] 陈彦亮, 高闯. (2014). 基于组织双元能力的惯例复制机制研究.中国工业经济, (10), 147-159.
[4] 焦豪, 杨季枫. (2022). 数字技术开源社区的治理机制: 基于悖论视角的双案例研究.管理世界, 38(11), 207-232.
[5] 焦豪, 张睿, 杨季枫. (2023). 数字经济情境下企业战略选择与数字平台生态系统构建——基于共演视角的案例研究. 管理世界, 39(12), 201-229.
[6] 李全, 佘卓霖, 杨百寅, 杨斌. (2023). 推力还是阻力? 工作狂领导对下属创造力的非线性影响研究.管理评论, 35(4), 203-214.
[7] 李振东, 梅亮, 朱子钦, 吴欣桐. (2023). 制造业单项冠军企业数字创新战略及其适配组态研究.管理世界, 39(2), 186-208.
[8] 梁永奕, 邓佳音, 严鸣, 马捷, 李爱梅. (2023). 团队虚拟性的“双刃剑”效应——基于团队发展的视角.心理科学进展, 31(9), 1583-1594.
[9] 林海芬, 曲廷琛. (2024). 战略变革情境中的组织多层级悖论网构建——基于经典扎根理论的研究.管理科学学报, 27(7), 56-83.
[10] 刘景东, 卢晓璇, 王丽. (2025). 从创新中介到创新催化:平台生态系统的创新触发研究.南开管理评论, 28(10), 17-30.
[11] 刘洋, 董久钰, 魏江. (2020). 数字创新管理: 理论框架与未来研究. 管理世界, 36(7), 198-217+219.
[12] 刘智强, 严荣笑, 唐双双. (2021). 领导创新期望与员工突破性创新投入: 基于悖论理论的研究.管理世界, 37(10), 226-241.
[13] 罗瑾琏, 唐慧洁, 李树文, 柳乐. (2021). 科创企业创新悖论及其应对效应研究. 管理世界, 37(3), 105-122+108.
[14] 罗映宇, 朱国玮, 钱无忌, 吴月燕, 黄静, 杨智. (2023). 人工智能时代的算法厌恶: 研究框架与未来展望.管理世界, 39(10), 205-233.
[15] 庞大龙, 徐立国, 席酉民. (2019). 文化双融视角下的组织悖论多元范式整合.管理学报, 16(1), 17-26.
[16] 曲永义. (2022). 数字创新的组织基础与中国异质性.管理世界, 38(10), 158-174.
[17] 史燕伟, 谢菊兰, 王雅妮, 张南. (2023). 数字化工作重塑及其对工作绩效的促进作用: 基于人-任务-技术匹配视角.心理科学进展, 31(7), 1133-1145.
[18] 唐慧洁, 罗瑾琏, 易明, 李树文, 钟竞. (2023). 科创企业创新悖论的主动应对机制——基于管理者角色身份建构的探索性案例研究.管理世界, 39(10), 189-205.
[19] 王炳成, 孙玉馨, 张士强, 曾丽君. (2024). 数字平台生态嵌入对商业模式创新的影响研究——基于资源编排理论的视角.研究与发展管理, 36(2), 101-112.
[20] 王节祥, 陈威如, 龚奕潼, 陈衍泰. (2024). 工业互联网平台构建中如何应对“个性与共性”矛盾? ——基于树根互联的案例研究.管理世界, 40(1), 155-180.
[21] 魏龙, 党兴华, 闫海. (2023). 技术创新网络惯例复制及其对创新催化的影响: 悖论整合的理论框架.南开管理评论, 26(1), 172-183.
[22] 魏龙, 党兴华, 闫海, 李礼旭. (2025). 悖论中的抉择:如何突破惯例复制困境实现创新催化? .管理评论, 37(2), 275-288.
[23] 武亚军, 葛明磊. (2024). 组织矛盾管理的悖论与辩证视角——迈向中西整合的新策略框架.经济管理, 46(6), 25-42.
[24] 谢小云, 左玉涵, 胡琼晶. (2021). 数字化时代的人力资源管理: 基于人与技术交互的视角. 管理世界, 37(1), 200-216+213.
[25] 徐本华, 邓传军, 武恒岳. (2021). 领导成员交换与员工主动创新行为: 一个被中介的调节模型.管理科学, 34(2), 44-55.
[26] 于超, 许晖, 王亚君. (2023). 生态“树”源: 平台生态系统的创新扩散机制研究——卡奥斯与科大讯飞平台的双案例对比分析.南开管理评论, 26(3), 15-29.
[27] 余传鹏, 黎展锋, 林春培, 廖杨月. (2024). 数字创新网络嵌入对制造企业新产品开发绩效的影响研究.管理世界, 40(5), 154-176.
[28] 于广涛, 富萍萍, 曲庆, 刘军, 孙聪. (2016). 中国人的人生价值观: 测量工具修订与理论建构.南开管理评论, 19(6), 70-80.
[29] 张志学, 贺伟. (2024). 人与人工智能的研究及其对组织管理的意义.外国经济与管理, 46(10), 3-17.
[30] 赵锴, 向姝婷. (2021). 如何解决团队创新悖论? 基于成员认知风格“组型”与“构型”视角的探究.心理科学进展, 29(1), 1-18.
[31] 赵可汗, 贾良定, 蔡亚华, 王秀月, 李珏兴. (2014). 抑制团队关系冲突的负效应: 一项中国情境的研究.管理世界, (3), 119-130.
[32] 周空, 周萱, 应雪晴. (2023). 从想法产生到想法执行: 团队绩效薪酬对团队创新的影响机制. 心理科学进展, 31(6), 944-957.
[33] Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation.Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
[34] Anthony C., Bechky B. A., & Fayard A. L. (2023). “Collaborating” with AI: Taking a system view to explore the future of work.Organization Science, 34(5), 1672-1694.
[35] Appio F. P., Frattini F., Petruzzelli A. M., & Neirotti P. (2021). Digital transformation and innovation management: A synthesis of existing research and an agenda for future studies.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 4-20.
[36] Berti, M., & Cunha, M. P. e. (2023). Paradox, dialectics or trade-offs? A double loop model of paradox.Journal of Management Studies, 60(4), 861-888.
[37] Bouschery S. G., Blazevic V., & Piller F. T. (2023). Augmenting human innovation teams with artificial intelligence: Exploring transformer-based language models.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 40(2), 139-153.
[38] Brunswicker, S., & Schecter, A. (2019). Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms.Research Policy, 48(8), 103771.
[39] Cai Z., Huang Q., Liu H., & Wang X. (2018). Improving the agility of employees through enterprise social media: The mediating role of psychological conditions. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 52-63.
[40] Calic G., Hélie S., Bontis N., & Mosakowski E. (2019). Creativity from paradoxical experience: A theory of how individuals achieve creativity while adopting paradoxical frames.Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(3), 397-418.
[41] Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of organizational innovation: Resolving the paradoxes.Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 29-40.
[42] Cunha, M. P. e., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success.Strategic Organization, 17(1), 95-106.
[43] Deist M. K., McDowell W. C., & Bouncken R. B. (2023). Digital units and digital innovation: Balancing fluidity and stability for the creation, conversion, and dissemination of sticky knowledge.Journal of Business Research, 161, 113827.
[44] Fragkandreas. (2025). Case study research on innovation systems: Paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution.Research Policy, 54(1), 105136.
[45] Gardner D. G., & Cummings L. L. (1988). Activation theory and job. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 81-122
[46] Gastaldi L., Lessanibahri S., Tedaldi G., & Miragliotta G. (2022). Companies’ adoption of smart technologies to achieve structural ambidexterity: An analysis with SEM.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121187.
[47] Hadjielias E., Dada O., Discua Cruz A., Zekas S., Christofi M., & Sakka G. (2021). How do digital innovation teams function? Understanding the team cognition-process nexus within the context of digital transformation.Journal of Business Research, 122, 373-386.
[48] Hahn T., Figge F., Pinkse J., & Preuss L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects.Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235-248.
[49] Hülsheger U. R., Anderson N., & Salgado J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research.Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145.
[50] Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Lê, J. K. (2017). We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor.Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 433-462.
[51] Kokshagina, O., & Schneider, S. (2023). The digital workplace: Navigating in a jungle of paradoxical tensions.California Management Review, 65(2), 129-155
[52] Kearney E., Shemla M., van Knippenberg D., & Scholz F. A. (2019). A paradox perspective on the interactive effects of visionary and empowering leadership.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 20-30.
[53] Knight, E., & Harvey, W. (2015). Managing exploration and exploitation paradoxes in creative organisations.Management Decision, 53(4), 809-827.
[54] Lanzolla G., Pesce D., & Tucci C. L. (2021). The digital transformation of search and recombination in the innovation function: Tensions and an integrative framework.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(1), 90-113.
[55] Larson, L., & DeChurch, L. A. (2020). Leading teams in the digital age: Four perspectives on technology and what they mean for leading teams.The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101377.
[56] Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2022). Reflections on the 2021 AMR decade award: Navigating paradox is paradoxical.Academy of Management Review, 47(4), 528-548.
[57] Ma L., Yu P., Zhang X., Wang G., & Hao F. (2024). How AI use in organizations contributes to employee competitive advantage: The moderating role of perceived organization support.Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 209, 123801.
[58] Makarius E. E., Mukherjee D., Fox J. D., & Fox A. K. (2020). Rising with the machines: A sociotechnical framework for bringing artificial intelligence into the organization.Journal of Business Research, 120, 262-273
[59] Miron-Spektor E., Emich K. J., Argote L., & Smith W. K. (2022). Conceiving opposites together: Cultivating paradoxical frames and epistemic motivation fosters team creativity.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 171, 104153.
[60] Miron-Spektor, E., & Erez, M. (2017). Looking at creativity through a Paradox Lens: Deeper Understanding and New Insights In W K Smith, M W Lewis, P Jarzabkowski, & A Langley (Eds), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp 434-451) Oxford University Press Deeper Understanding and New Insights. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 434-451). Oxford University Press.
[61] Miron-Spektor E., Ingram A., Keller J., Smith W. K., & Lewis M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem.Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45.
[62] Miron-Spektor, E., & Paletz, S. B. F. (2020). Collective paradoxical frames: Managing tensions in learning and innovation In L Argote & J M Levine (Eds), The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning (pp 429-448) Oxford University Press Managing tensions in learning and innovation. In L. Argote & J. M. Levine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning (pp. 429-448). Oxford University Press.
[63] Moschko L., Blazevic V., & Piller F. T. (2023). Paradoxes of implementing digital manufacturing systems: A longitudinal study of digital innovation projects for disruptive change.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 40(4), 506-529.
[64] Nambisan S., Lyytinen K., Majchrzak A., & Song M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world.MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223-238.
[65] Ouyang T., Cao X., Wang J., & Zhang S. (2020). Managing technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level ambidexterity capabilities.Internet Research, 30(5), 1503-1520.
[66] Pattinson S., Cunningham J. A., & Preece D. (2023). Harnessing creative tensions: A micro-level study of value creation.Journal of Business Research, 166, 114150.
[67] Purvanova, R. K., & Kenda, R. (2018). Paradoxical virtual leadership: Reconsidering virtuality through a paradox Lens.Group and Organization Management, 43(5), 752-786.
[68] Putnam L. L., Fairhurst G. T., & Banghart S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach.Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171.
[69] Qiu H., Chreim S., & Freel M. (2023). A tension lens for understanding entrepreneurship-related activities in the university.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 186, 122167.
[70] Raisch S., Hargrave T. J., & van de Ven, A. H. (2018). The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox.Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1507-1526.
[71] Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox.Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210.
[72] Ruiz L., Benitez J., Castillo A., & Braojos J. (2024). Digital human resource strategy: Conceptualization, theoretical development, and an empirical examination of its impact on firm performance. Information & Management, 61(4), 103966.
[73] Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines.Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170-209.
[74] Sarker S., Chatterjee S., Xiao X., & Elbanna A. (2019). The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS discipline: Its historical legacy and its continued relevance.MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 695-719.
[75] Schad J., Lewis M. W., Raisch S., & Smith W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward.Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64.
[76] Shao Y., Nijstad B. A., & Täuber S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7-19.
[77] Sheep M. L., Fairhurst G. T., & Khazanchi S. (2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off.Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 463-488.
[78] Sleesman, D. J. (2019). Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 83-96.
[79] Smith W., Erez M., Jarvenpaa S., Lewis M. W., & Tracey P. (2017). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change.Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 303-317.
[80] Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing.Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
[81] Talwar S., Luqman A., Kaur P., Srivastava P., & Mishra., S. (2023). How social networking ties mediate the associations between enterprise social media affordances and employee agility? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 195, 122759.
[82] Tan S. Y., Taeihagh A., & Tripathi A. (2021). Tensions and antagonistic interactions of risks and ethics of using robotics and autonomous systems in long-term care.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, 120686.
[83] Thayer A. L., Petruzzelli A., & McClurg C. E. (2018). Addressing the paradox of the team innovation process: A review and practical considerations.The American Psychologist, 73(4), 363-375.
[84] Tse, T. (2013). Paradox resolution: A means to achieve strategic innovation.European Management Journal, 31(6), 682-696.
[85] Volpentesta T., Spahiu E., & De Giovanni P. (2023). A survey on incumbent digital transformation: A paradoxical perspective and research agenda.European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(7), 478-501.
[86] Waldman D. A., Putnam L. L., Miron-Spektor E., & Siegel D. (2019). The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 1-6.
[87] Woolley, J. L. (2023). Getting along with frenemies: Enhancing multi-competitor coopetition governance through artificial intelligence and blockchain.Industry and Innovation, 30(9), 1156-1189.
[88] Zhang M. J., Zhang Y., & Law K. S. (2022). Paradoxical leadership and innovation in work teams: The multilevel mediating role of ambidexterity and leader vision as a boundary condition.Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1652-1679.
[89] Zhang Z., Waldman D. A., & Wang Z. (2012). A multilevel investigation of leader-member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance.Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 49-78.
[90] Zhou J., Wang X. M., Bavato D., Tasselli S., & Wu J. (2019). Understanding the receiving side of creativity: A multidisciplinary review and implications for management research. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2570-2595.